DCT

1:18-cv-04500

Kewazinga Corp v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kewazinga Corp. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Case Identification: 1:18-cv-04500, S.D.N.Y., 05/21/2018
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Microsoft maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including corporate offices and retail stores, and because portions of the accused product's imagery were produced in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Streetside service, which provides navigable street-level imagery, infringes three patents related to navigable telepresence methods and systems.
Technical Context: The technology involves systems for capturing images of an environment with an array of cameras and processing those images to allow users to simulate independent and seamless movement through that environment.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history between the parties, including communications in 2006 where Plaintiff disclosed its technology and two of the patents-in-suit to Defendant. Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit in 2013, which was voluntarily dismissed. The complaint also notes that one of the patents-in-suit was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of Defendant's own patents, and that prior art identified by Defendant in the 2013 action was successfully overcome during the prosecution of the most recent patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-04-02	Earliest Priority Date for ’234, ’325, and ’226 Patents
1999-04-01	’226 Patent Application Filed
1999-10-15	’325 Patent Application Filed
2003-02-18	’325 Patent Issued
2003-03-18	’226 Patent Issued
2006-03-01	Plaintiff-Defendant communications begin (approx.)
2013-06-27	Prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant
2013-10-21	Prior lawsuit voluntarily dismissed
2014-10-02	’234 Patent Application Filed
2015-04-30	’325 Patent cited by USPTO in prosecution of a Microsoft patent
2015-06-09	’234 Patent Issued
2018-05-21	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,055,234 - "Navigable Telepresence Method and System"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,055,234, entitled "Navigable Telepresence Method and System," issued on June 9, 2015 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Prior art telepresence systems were limited, often restricting a user to a panoramic view from a single, fixed location or requiring complex control of a moving camera vehicle, which could result in discontinuous imagery (’325 Patent, col. 2:1-38). The objective was to create a system that allows users greater autonomy to navigate a remote environment seamlessly (’325 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where images from an environment, captured by cameras with overlapping fields of view, are stored electronically. Processing elements then receive inputs from multiple, independent users. Based on these inputs, the system generates and sequentially provides "mosaic imagery" to each user, creating the experience of navigating along a customized path through the environment, simultaneously with and independently of other users (’234 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:53-2:15).
Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a multi-user, asynchronous experience by decoupling the image capture from the navigation, a foundational concept for modern scalable street-level mapping and virtual tour applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts system claim 1 and method claim 13 as non-limiting examples of infringement (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
Independent Claim 1 requires, in part, processing elements configured to receive inputs from first and second users, store imagery from cameras with overlapping fields, generate "mosaic imagery," and sequentially provide this mosaic imagery to the first and second users independently and simultaneously based on their respective inputs.
Independent Claim 13 requires, in part, a method of receiving inputs from a user, generating "mosaic imagery" from stored electronic imagery captured by cameras with overlapping fields, and sequentially providing the mosaic imagery to the user based on their inputs.
The complaint also asserts infringement of dependent claim 14 (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 6,522,325 - "Navigable Telepresence Method and System Utilizing an Array of Cameras"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,522,325, entitled "Navigable Telepresence Method and System Utilizing an Array of Cameras," issued on February 18, 2003 (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the shortcomings of existing telepresence systems, such as the discontinuous image transitions that result from "jumping" between camera views in vehicle-based systems and the static perspective of 360-degree cameras (’325 Patent, col. 2:15-38).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a pre-positioned "array of cameras" to capture an environment. A processing element receives inputs from multiple users indicating movement along independent paths, selects the corresponding camera outputs, and "mixes" them by "sequentially mosaicing" the images to create a seamless visual experience for each user, allowing simultaneous and independent navigation (’325 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-16). Figure 1 illustrates a system architecture with an array of cameras coupled through a server to multiple user interface devices (’325 Patent, FIG. 1).
Technical Importance: The patent describes an early architecture for creating shared, navigable virtual spaces from real-world imagery, enabling multiple users to explore the same pre-recorded environment from their own unique perspectives.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts system claim 1 and method claim 29 as non-limiting examples of infringement (Compl. ¶¶34-35).
Independent Claim 1 requires, in part, an "array of cameras" defining at least one path, first and second user interface devices for independent paths, and a processing element configured to interpret inputs from each user, select camera outputs for each path, and "mix" the outputs by "sequentially mosaicing them."
Independent Claim 29 requires, in part, a method of receiving images from a first array, removing it, receiving images from a second array at a different location, storing the images, and then sequentially providing a first and second image from the different arrays to a user to simulate movement.
The complaint alleges infringement of the claims of the ’325 patent generally (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 6,535,226 - "Navigable Telepresence Method and System Utilizing an Array of Cameras"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,535,226, entitled "Navigable Telepresence Method and System Utilizing an Array of Cameras," issued on March 18, 2003 (Compl. ¶15).

Technology Synopsis

Belonging to the same patent family, this invention describes a system for providing multiple users with simulated, independent movement through an environment. The system uses an array of cameras to capture views, stores the camera outputs with location data in a shared electronic storage device, and allows a processing element to sequentially retrieve the stored outputs for multiple users to simulate progressive movement along different paths (’226 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:42-16:4).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent system claim 119 as a non-limiting example (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Microsoft Streetside's system of capturing, storing, and providing imagery to multiple users to simulate movement infringes the ’226 patent (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Microsoft Streetside" service and associated systems, including the version accessible via the Bing Maps website and the Windows Maps App integrated into Microsoft's Windows 8.1 and 10 operating systems (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality provides navigable, street-level imagery to end-users (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that this imagery is captured by cameras with "overlapping fields of view" mounted on automobiles, which capture images at intervals as they move down streets (Compl. ¶¶7, 25).
Microsoft’s computer system, including servers and storage devices, is alleged to store these images, generate "mosaic imagery," and provide it to users on their devices (e.g., computers, tablets, smartphones) (Compl. ¶25). The system allegedly allows a first and second user to navigate "simultaneously and independently along first and second views of the environment" (Compl. ¶25).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’234 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
one or more processing elements configured to... receive, from a first user interface device... first user inputs... and... receive, from a second user interface device... second user inputs...	Microsoft's computer system is alleged to receive inputs from first and second users on their respective devices when they use Streetside to view the environment.	¶25	col. 2:1-5
...store... electronic imagery of the environment that were captured by cameras having overlapping fields of view...	Microsoft’s computer system stores images captured by cameras mounted on automobiles, which are alleged to have overlapping fields of view.	¶25	col. 1:63-65
...generate mosaic imagery from the electronic imagery of the environment;	The complaint alleges Microsoft's computer system is configured to generate mosaic imagery from the stored environmental images.	¶25	col. 2:6-7
...based on the first user inputs, sequentially provide to the first user interface device mosaic imagery of progressively different locations along the first view;	Based on inputs from a first user, the system provides mosaic imagery of progressive locations, for example, down a street.	¶25	col. 2:8-10
...sequentially provide to the second user interface device mosaic imagery... simultaneously with and independently of the mosaic imagery provided to the first user interface device...	The system allegedly allows a second user to navigate simultaneously and independently of the first user by providing them with mosaic imagery along their own selected view.	¶25	col. 2:10-15

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused system, which serves individual, asynchronous user requests over the internet, meet the "simultaneously with and independently" limitation? The court may need to determine if this requires a system designed for a contemporaneous, shared multi-user session or if it can be met by a server architecture that can handle requests from different users at the same time.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to show that the accused system's image-stitching technique is the "mosaic imagery" generation process described in the patent? The complaint's allegation is conclusory, and the specific technical method used by Microsoft will be a central factual dispute.

’325 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an array of cameras, each... having an associated view... the array including at least one camera path wherein each path is defined by a series of cameras having progressively different perspectives...	The complaint alleges that cameras mounted on automobiles capture images from progressively different perspectives as they move, defining a path that can be considered an "array."	¶34	col. 3:1-5
a first user interface device... having first user inputs associated with movement along a first path... and a second user interface device... having second user inputs associated with movement along a second path... independent of... the first path...	The complaint alleges a first user and a second user, on separate devices, provide inputs to indicate movement along independent paths, such as down a street.	¶34	col. 3:5-10
at least one processing element... configured to: interpret... first... inputs and select outputs of cameras in the first path; and mix the selected camera outputs... by sequentially mosaicing them...	Microsoft's computer system is alleged to interpret the first user's inputs, select camera outputs, and "mix" them by "sequentially mosaicing" them.	¶34	col. 11:20-22
...independently interpret... second... inputs... and select outputs of cameras in the second path; and mix the selected camera outputs... by sequentially mosaicing them...	The system is alleged to perform the same interpretation, selection, and mixing for a second user, independently of the first, allowing simultaneous navigation.	¶34, ¶12	col. 12:1-5

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does a temporal sequence of images captured by a single moving camera rig constitute an "array of cameras"? The patent figures depict static, physical grids of cameras on rails (’325 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3), which may support a narrower construction requiring a spatially distributed, co-existing set of cameras, potentially creating a non-infringement argument for a system based on mobile data capture over time.
- Technical Questions: How does the complaint support the allegation that the accused system "mix[es]" outputs by "sequentially mosaicing" them? This specific claim language requires proof of a particular technical operation, which will be a key point of dispute compared to other possible image transition methods.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "mosaic imagery" (’234 Patent) and "sequentially mosaicing" (’325 Patent)
- Context and Importance: These terms define the core technical action of creating a seamless view from multiple images. Whether Microsoft’s image-stitching process is equivalent to the patented "mosaicing" is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the specific mechanism of infringement that distinguishes the invention from simply displaying a series of disconnected pictures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '325 patent specification incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,649,032 for a system that automatically aligns images to form a mosaic, which could support an interpretation covering various known mosaicing techniques (’325 Patent, col. 13:16-22). The specification also discusses "mixing" camera outputs more generally, listing "mosaicing," "tweening," and "compositing" as examples, suggesting the term is not limited to a single method (’325 Patent, col. 4:36-41).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '325 patent also describes a specific "mosaic composition process" involving distinct "selection" and "combination" steps, with the latter applying "merging, fusing, filtering, output enhancement, and the like" (’325 Patent, col. 13:26-39). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires these specific sub-steps.
The Term: "array of cameras" (’325 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory relies on a series of images taken over time by a mobile camera rig constituting an "array." If "array" is construed to require a set of cameras that are physically co-located in space at a single point in time, the infringement case could fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 29 of the ’325 patent describes a method that includes "receiving electronic images... from a first array," "removing the first array," and then "receiving electronic images... from a second array... from different places," which suggests an array can be a mobile or transient construct rather than a permanent, static fixture (’325 Patent, col. 25:20-35).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description heavily feature "modular, interlocking arrays of microcameras" situated on "rails" in a fixed grid (’325 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3; col. 4:1-3). This consistent depiction of a static, physical grid could support a narrower construction limited to simultaneously existing cameras.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on Microsoft allegedly providing Streetside with the intent that users infringe, as evidenced by its design, user instructions, and its inclusion in Microsoft products like Windows and Surface devices (Compl. ¶¶28, 36, 43). The contributory infringement theory alleges Streetside's navigable imagery is a material part of the invention, especially adapted for infringement, and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶29, 37, 44).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness for all three patents, citing extensive pre-suit knowledge. This knowledge is alleged to stem from: direct communications and disclosure of the '226 and '325 patents to Microsoft in 2006; a prior 2013 lawsuit involving the same parties and patents; and the '325 patent being cited by the USPTO against Microsoft's own patent applications in 2015 (Compl. ¶¶17-23, 32, 40, 47).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "array of cameras," described in the patent specifications with reference to fixed, physical grids, be construed to cover a temporal series of images captured by a single, mobile camera system, as is allegedly used by the accused Streetside service?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does Microsoft's process for stitching and transitioning between street-level images perform the specific function of "sequentially mosaicing" as that term is understood from the patent's specification, or does it employ a non-infringing technology?
Given the detailed allegations of prior interactions, including direct disclosures in 2006, a previous lawsuit, and USPTO citations, a central question for damages will be willfulness: does the alleged history of pre-suit knowledge rise to the level of egregious conduct required to justify an award of enhanced damages?